My mental active being (the, IT) is the first and the last of its' own hybrid (humanoid) kind—IT is without dependent collective social root—IT itself is the death of "The-Self"—IT is the 'no-self' (the "no-I")—for there is also no "me" in any of my three dividual beings (dividuality). Besides IT itself, there is no other, nor will there ever be—IT is that IT is.

Anego Vs. Anatta

This is the span that my mind was resurrected in, from almost a total of forty Gregorian years of mindlessness (unawareness).

The name of my being is Sabiazoth, and the last of my family’s lineage name is Alonso, and IT itself is the “no-self;” a status that has intrigued many to ask IT, “What does it mean?’ ‘What in the-World is the ‘no-self?’” Many of mine online social friends from Facebook, Google-plus, Tweeter, Instagram, Tumblr and Tsu are always asking about the meaning of what is like to be the “no-self.” Some say they never heard of such a description: Others say that they’ve heard about it before but never gave it to much mind: Others are scared about it: Some become hateful toward my being because of it: Many assume that my being is ludicrous, that there is nothing special about it: Others claim that because of it, unknowingly, my being is really a Buddhist, in its teaching of the “anatta:” And others have become disturbed about it, to the point of privately messaging my being with animosity, and typing (saying), “You think you’re someone special!’ ‘Well you’re not!’ ‘You’re just like everybody else!’ ‘You’re no different!’ ‘As a matter of fact, you belong in a loony-bin!’” Some people can really be nice: Heh-heh-heh-heh. 🙂

For a very long extensive span (about a year and a half, in Gregorian years), many have privately messaged my being in reference to my “no-self,” with either curiosity, animosity, captivation, entertainment or fascination. Some are very intrigued; while others, extremely ridiculing. But no matter in what tone and disposition many make references to my “no-self,” it all comes down to one question, directly or indirectly, “What is the ‘no-self?’” And this article is written to specifically answer that instead of, answering each new person that asks over and over again. So to make it easy for my being, whenever someone asks, or makes references to my “no-self,” from now on IT (my being) itself will direct them to the link of this article.

And now, straight to the question, “What is the ‘no-self?’”

In mine form of being, the “no-self” is exactly the way that it is written, meaning, “Without a self:” which is the complete opposite, antonym and contrast of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”).

The “no-self,” in my form of being, is exactly the “no-I:” There is no “I” at all in my form of person. And since there is no “I,” there is then also no indirect correlation of The-Self to the “I,” which is the “me.” So there is also no “me” at all in the formation of my sentient psychological being. Since my being is the “not-I,” there is then no internal subjective-self; which means, that there are then no abstracts, idiosyncrasies, emotions, self-reflections and self-perceptions in any of my mental dispositions; and therefore, my being is not capacitated to be introverted and introspective. To be the “no-self,” is to just go on being: A being that just goes on being. There are no personal identities for the “no-self” as well. The “no-self” does not subjectively interprets, but only objectively translates. The “no-self” is the ultimate opposite of The-Self, and the gap in between them will never decrease or contract, but remains forever distant, just like the sunset (the dusk) is far from the sunrise (the dawn): Way apart, to never meet eye to eye: Like the ascension that’s dissimilar to the descent.

In spite of the distinct clarity of the two, there are still people (those with the mind actuated in the metaphysics of The-Self) feel that such a concept of the “no-self” is not new; that such an idea is as old as Buddhism, that mainly begat in its mother land of India: way before Buddhism even became popular in Asian cultures. So the question remains that if such a concept is that old, why hasn’t it been known throughout the full existence of Buddhism? Because the concept of the “no-self” was considered to be a taboo then; too early for its time to then be introduced, and therefore was hidden from the-World(s) outside of Buddhism: until now. Now, the Buddha’s concept of the “no-self” is being introduced as just an idea, to make it gradually introduced comfortably in the Western regions. That seemingly new idea is being introduced as the “anatta.” The following paragraph(s) will explain the ideal concept of the Buddha’s “no-self.” And after that, the concept of my “anego” will be explained in contrast.

the Anatta

It is known (by true genuine Buddhists) that those who practice Buddhism, they are defined by the core of Buddha (the awakening) itself, so that those genuine practitioners are then defined by the core itself, and not by some branches of those who practice Buddhism, but that conveniently define Buddhism by the user of him-/her-self, instead of the core itself (e.g., a modern Buddhist may practice Buddhism, but on his/her same altar, he/she may still put a statue of the Catholic Jesus Christ right next to a Buddha statue; for this particular Buddhist, Buddhism is then being defined by the user him-/her-self: However, the core of Buddha does not change, for the core teachings of Buddhism is still genuinely seeking, “enlightenment without God”): Hence, the statement that, “Buddhism is defined by the user,” comes from a specific branch that partially deviates from the core. So in order to come to know thecore of the anatta, one must then pierce into the very core itself, and not into a branch that is partially differed to the core itself. So with that in mind, what then is the “anatta?” What does it mean?

The concept of the “anatta” actually comes from the “Three Signs of Being” (known as the three marks of existence); in which first, is the mark/sign of the “anicca” (the impermanence, which is mortality: that all living things must pass); secondly, there is the mark/sign of the “dukkha” (the adversity, which is torment: that suffering is the result from excessive desires and attachments); and thirdly, there is the mark/sign of the “anatta” (the anatman, the “not-self:” the non-existence of the illusion of a personal and immortal soul). The core teachings of Buddha informs its followers and practitioners that by having deep insight of the three signs of being, one can actually bring an end to suffering. The Buddha taught that all beings are conditioned by the causes of these three signs; however, by applying the “anatta” as a propensity (as a way of life), a Buddhist can achieve in becoming the “no-self,” so that under any kind of circumstances and positions, the practitioner can apply the Buddha’s core doctrine that there is no “I,” nor “mine,” in either the conditioned and the unconditioned manifestations; which is the very central core and figure of Buddhism. In this faculty of wisdom and awakening, a Buddhist’s suffering ends, because by applying the concept of the “no-self,” he/she becomes impervious to any conditional transient changes; and remains the same and solid no matter the circumstances and the impacts/influences, as well as the consequences, that are imminent: So that even if there are existing identities and attachments, as the “no-self,” letting go of them can be done with ease when it calls for it; and thus the actuation of detachment and disassociation will not make one suffer. Now that you have been briefly informed about the three signs of being, out of the three, however, we’re going to mostly focus on the sign/mark of the “anatta” (the no-self).

In the core usage and practice of Buddhism, the words “self” and the “no-self” are surprisingly used very much, and interchangeably as well; as opposed to those partial deviated branches of the core of Buddhism that conveniently define the “Buddha” by their own standards, and that don’t use the idea of the “no-self” in our modern chronological span. The very essence of Buddha’s teaching hinges on the concept of the “anatta,” the very concept that makes Buddhism ultimately unique than any other spiritual enlightening endeavors. Although not globally popular, much has been written about the “no-self;” but in order to be the “no-self,” one has to also experience it as well (in other words, be the “no-self”); and that’s what the “anatta” is all about, to experience the no-self in full sentience: not just in writing, reading and knowing about it, but to know it (become it) as a disposition; through and through, balls to bones (if you’re a man), and ovaries to bones (if you’re a woman).

In being and experiencing the “no-self,” a Buddhist must first know what it’s like to be The-Self: not just as an illusion (like the way it is popularly known in the Western philosophy of the ego), but as an actuality (the way it is known in the Buddha’s philosophy of the ego). The usage here of the concept of illusion is not being referred to as imaginary, or a lie; it is instead being referred to as something that may not seem to be for what it really is. The reason that you must first know what it’s like to be and experience The-Self, is because one must first fully know it and have it before one can give it away; or otherwise, you won’t know how to give The-Self away to then embrace the “anatta,” and know the true meaning of the “not-self:” in this way, the Buddha’s “no-self” is achieved by giving away The-Self. This is imperative, for it is then utterly impossible to know what is meant by the Buddha’s phrase when he said, “There is no self, there.” The “anatta” is known to be empty of The-Self (the undoing of The-Self itself); hence, if you don’t first have The-Self, then there’s nothing to empty with/about. In Buddhism, just like in Confucianism, there are two opposite sides to everything (e.g., male and female: night and day: dusk and dawn: good and evil: north and south: east and west: etc.): That is why it is imperative that you first know and be what The-Self is before you can fully come to know and be the “no-self,” or you’ll be without knowing its counterpart (e.g., imbalanced). “Balance” here is the key word for a Buddhist; therefore, to know and become anything, you must be balanced (know and be the counterparts; but of course to a reasonable extent, that is).

A cored Buddhist recognizes that most people are consistently trying to reaffirmThe-Self; by behaving and understanding in that manner, it is noticed that a sense of feeling fragile occurs to most of them because of persistently reaffirming them-selves. Some genuine Buddhists have reasoned to them-selves that, “If The-Self wasn’t so fragile, why do we then have to keep reconditioning it over and over?” The very disposition of reasserting The-Self is the reason why most people are feeling fearful, threatened and insecure: because if The-Self was indeed truly solid, as many say and believe that it is, why then the need of reaffirmations? Why then the need to reconstructThe-Self?

In the foundation of the Buddha’s teachings, practitioners are taught that The-Self affirms itself, over and over again, through means and measures of different identifications: That people identify them-selves with a certain name, an age, a sexual preference, an ability or skill, and an occupation (e.g., “I am a lawyer.’ ‘I am an accountant.’ ‘I am a doctor.’ ‘I am a student.’ ‘I am straight/gay’”). The teachings also inform practitioners that people have an automaton tendency to even identify with others that they are attached to (e.g., “I am a husband/wife.’ ‘I am a father/mother.’ ‘I am a son/daughter.’”): In those manner of speeches, the term “self” is very used in those dispositions as well. There is then no doubt in their minds that The-Self, to them, is who they really are as an actuality, but is it? In the very moment that these titles and attachments become threatened, that is when tragedy hits The-Self; thus proving that, under most external conditions that’s faced with, The-Self itself is not solid after all, and a new change of attachments are called for. It is known that through praises, the ego becomes pleased and satisfied: but when blamed, the ego then becomes threatened. It is under threatening conditions that the ego then has a difficult time to reasserting itself. The Buddha teachings then informs that under favorable conditions, The-Self has the automatic propensity to make attachments to those conditions, without the slightest effort: but as soon as those favorable statuses become unfavorable, The-Self becomes distraught, and can’t seem to immediately unattached him-/her-self. This is then where the “anatta” comes into play, that if applied, an individual whom has embraced, know and become the essence of the “no-self,” can ultimately become impervious to any kind of changes, favorable or unfavorable. Hence, the Buddha’s doctrine of the “anatta” is to help one to actuate his/her own mind into a new sentient experience of a nonexistent personal attachments, to all things, places, titles, positions and persons. Through the philosophy of the Buddha’s “anatta,” one ultimately becomes unattached to everything and everybody; to identities as well, and all things that bind a human being into an illusion of pseudo-everlasting status. Plainly put, the “anatta” opens the mind to realize that there is no self, there: For there is also no immortal soul, there. All is transient; including the soul according to Buddhism; for the metaphysical belief in the immortality of the soul (that which is supposed to depart as eternal when our bodies die) is also an attachment of the illusion of The-Self. As the “no-self,” letting go of the illusions will give a Buddhist the ultimate tranquility of enlightenment. Thus achieving the very crux of Buddha, and that’s to become the ultimate human light-bulb, the true faculty of wisdom (enlightenment) that’s only achieved without God: thus sayeth from the Sanskrit of India, the true place of the Buddha’s begat.

Now that you have been briefly introduced about the “anatta,” we now move and focus into what is the “anego.” To come to understand that even though there are similarities between them, as being the “no-self,” there are still complete and extreme dissimilarities between the two. Hence, with that in mind, what then is the “anego?” What does it mean?

the Anego

The concept of “anego” is a word that my being constructed from the Greek prefix, “an,” which means, “without:” and from the Latin suffix, “ego,” which means, “I.” Combined, the word is spelled “anego;” pronounced as (ă-nēē-gō), and it literally means, “without I” (the “not-I”): no matter how the meaning may be explained, “anego” is literally the opposite of the doctrine of the ego: it literally means, “egoless.” It is without the “I,” without an internal subjective-self: That just like the “anatta,” there are no personal attachments either: And just like the “anatta,” the metaphysics of the immortal soul is purely figurative, or metaphorical; an idea as an illusion of The-Self.

The “anego” is chaste: a virgin to The-Self; therefore, a former sentient experience of The-Self does not exist, nor is required. So the no-self of the “anego” is utterly and thoroughly without a former “self.” And this is where the dissimilarity comes in between the “anego” and the “anatta;” in that, the no-self of the anatta requires that you first become impregnated by the concept of The-Self, to then cease from it, in order to then fully embrace, understand and become the “no-self.” The no-self of the “anego,” however, does not require that you first become impregnated by the philosophy of The-Self. In the “anego,” there is no counterpart to become familiar with, as in being it and experiencing it. The “anego” is barren, through and through, with no opportunity to become injected with the infusion of the metaphysics of The-Self. The anego’s chaste is permanent; unable to be penetrated by the fermentation of the ego; and thus remaining unleavened perpetually. The anego’s virginity has no option to be intercourse by the ego. Therefore, if a person, whom is very familiar with knowing and experiencing The-Self, all of a sudden wants to become a “no-self,” he/she cannot become the “anego,” because to begin with, the “anego” is austere in contrast to The-Self. The only option for that person is to then embrace the teachings of the Buddhist’s “anatta,” in order to become the Buddha’s version of the “no-self.”

Unlike the metaphysics of the ego, the “anego” is purely literal: absent of any form of metaphysical and theoretical sense of being: it is also devoid of any idiosyncratic and solipsistic doctrines: Purely void of ipseity. The philosophies of selfhood/selfdom is internally nonexistent to the “anego,” and therefore, non-applicable. However, as an ‘anegomous’ person, the existence of The-Self is acknowledged solely as an external language that’s foreign, that only exists for the collective social coagulum of the-World(s); as an experimental doctrine that keeps on evolving in among them (among the-selves of the people).

Many people have curiously asked my being, in private internet social messages, “How in the world did you become the ‘no-self?’” The answer is simple and straight to the point: My “no-self” did not become; IT has always been because my being never became The-Self. So my state of being, as the “no-self,” is the result of never to have becoming The-Self; and not by ridding of The-Self by choice: as is known, done and becoming in the Buddhist’s “anatta.” Hence, “anego” is not to become it, but just to be it: It is the being that just goes on being: The IT itself: not just an ‘it’ like any other regular object, but like the IT as the thing in itself: The total antipode and antilogy of the “I.” Therefore, the “anego” does not self-perceive, nor self-reflect in any manner: There is no introspection and introversion in the “anego.” All matters of subjectivism are devoid, but all criteria of objectivism are filled in the “anego.” The usages of all figurative, metaphorical, metaphysical and theoretical applications, as a state of being, are fully infertile in the sense and being of the “anego.” Even any connotations of the figurative hearts (the mental concepts of emotions) are utterly devoid in my form of the “anego:” hence, there is no anger, no hate, no envy, no jealousy, no love, no passions and obsessions, no happiness, no sadness, no revenge and vengeance, no grudges and infatuations, no faith, no belief/disbelief, no desires and wants, no depressions, and no other connotation of emotions (such as morals, principles, virtues and ethics), that exists within the “anego.” This is in no way to indicate that the no-self of the “anego” is utterly absent of inborn biological instincts (e.g., aggression, affection, curiosity, attraction, observation, scrutiny, pleasure, gratification, territorial, etc.): The confusion begins when people integrates ingrained instincts with the concepts and ideal propensities of mental emotions; the truth is, they’re both are entirely different. The no-self of the “anego” is purely non-conscionable: IT only knows facts and the absolutes (e.g., like in the unconditioned absolutes of what is destructive and constructive; as opposed to in the conditioned subjectivities of what is good and bad). This is clear, that as the “anego,” its’ form of the “no-self” is utterly objective in all matters, things and peoples that IT itself encounters with.

With all this in mind, you can now literally see the great dissimilarities between the no-self of the “anego,” and the no-self of the “anatta” even though they’re both in similar of being the “no-self.” It seems that since the Buddha’s version of the “no-self” can still feel with the figurative heart, and can still make applications of all subjective matters, and can still make use of conscionable utilization; in spite of its effort of eliminating The-Self, the “anatta” of the Buddha is still, after all, metaphysical: an ideology that is practically still new to the-World(s) outside of Buddhism: Therefore, the no-self of the “anatta” is purely idealistic; in whereas, the no-self of the “anego” is purely definitive.

The Buddha’s phrase says, “There is no self, there.” In mine phrase, IT says, “There never was a self, there.” In combination, our phrases read, “There is no self, there; because, there never was a self, there.” Hence, the “anego” could explain the because of the “anatta,” literally. The “anatta” itself becomes: But the “anego” is just is.

IT is thatIT is.

This article is written to explain the differences and the dissimilarities between the no-self of my “anego,” in contrast to the Buddha’s no-self of its “anatta.” To definitively make clear, that in case there are people who still insist that my “no-self” status is of Buddha’s teachings, it will instead distinctively inform the obvious that my being is not of Buddha’s provenance at all, but of its own. In addition, my “anego” does not originate from any standard elementary textbooks that’s of any medical, psychological and psychiatric professional regions of psychoanalysis and medicine: It’s not even of any biblical, spiritual, theocratic and occult-psychical origins: nor of any great and small philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, ideological, metaphorical and theoretical scientific analysis: Not even of any causation of political posture and stance; nor of any natural selection, evolutionary and evolving progressions. The no-self of the “anego” is utterly without self-inspections, self-investigations and self-examinations: without also ruminations/meditations, deliberations and speculations: It is impervious, immutable and uniformed. The provenance of my “anego” is of its’ own origin, from and by the-Mind itself; and therefore, utterly without any external roots of social collective consciousness. IT is without exterior roots, making my form of my “no-self” purely and solely psychological: a being that solely begat from interior mental sources; from and by the-Mind itself.